Not so long ago I suggested a little stretch might improve market appeal

Actually, Boeing's inital plans included a -8 variants slightly larger than what we currently see. ASAIK, the -9 was planned for 270, then shrunk to 255, but they might have gone back to the original figure.

I suspect that QR and EK are both pushing for the -9 to be as large as possible. 260 seats would be ideal IMO.

"The end" is a gross exaggeration.... they will likely complement each other. No doubt some 772ER orders will go to the 7E7-9, but the -9 (even seating 260-270) would be unable to replace the 772ER entirely. Don't forget the 773ER and de-tanked 772LR.... no 7E7 could replace these aircraft.

Remember that carriers like AA, BA, and especiallyAF use the 772ER/773ER on premium routes but 744 on high capacity (but not necessarily yield) routes. These aircraft fly with as many first/biz seats as possible, so floor area is a necessity.

Isn't the 7E7-9 more like the size of a 767-400? while the 8 was a 767-300 size? It wouldn't directly compete with the A333 or 772.

I think at this point, if Boeing wants to get 60 orders for the 7E7, they better start making the 9 version. I have a feeling the 9 will outsell the 8 anyway, at least until the American legacy carriers get enough money to buy some 8s.

I am taken aback by Boeing's arrogance on delivering the larger plane. They need to listen to what their customers WANT not what they want. I am a big Boeing supporter but arrogance never goes well with people. Especially when you say you'll hit 200 orders by years end and here we are with 1 1/2 months left and only ~50 orders + 50 maybes.

I am taken aback by Boeing's arrogance on delivering the larger plane. They need to listen to what their customers WANT not what they want

Nearly *all* the inital interest for the 7E7 was for the -3 and -8 variant. Looking at the orders that have been placed, Boeing has 30 7E7-3s and 22 7E7-8s totally 100% firm and another ~20+ at various stages of aquisition. Boeing does not (yet) have any -9 orders so they will wait to introduce this variant... 60 orders could very well change this, but Boeing has finite resources and must do what the majority of customers want.

I am a big Boeing supporter but arrogance never goes well with people.

Oh get a life the aircraft hasn't been fully defined and EOS is a minimum of 4 years away.... the time table is still very much flexible. Boeing will introduce the aircraft in the order that customers demand. And if you havn't noticed, rumors are Boeing might move -9 EOS up 18 months if this order is for real.

Especially when you say you'll hit 200 orders by years end and here we are with 1 1/2 months left and only ~50 orders + 50 maybes.

Slow down turbo... let's analyize Boeing's claim that they could have 200 orders. From the firm orders placed, and the publically announced interest in the 7E7, we can assume the following-

82 7E7 orders, and with the possibility of 3 major orders in Summer-04, Boeing wasn't being that irrational in claiming they could have 200 orders by years end.

--

***SQ was looking to order 30 regional widebodies, which would have been a slam-dunk had SQ not deferred their decision. Southeast Asia is being swarmed by LCC narrowbodies and they had to wait and see. China is waiting for god knows what.... but if they place an order, it will likely be huge.

Boeing has one of the most impressive widebody portfolio's in the world. The 773ER has beaten all expectations, the 772LR is a few months from roll-out, and the 7E7 is, by all indications, going very smoothly. Airbus is poised to get royally screwed from the 200-400 seat market...

What is Boeing doing wrong? Missing out on those super-profitable (sarcasim) NB orders? The A320 might be flooding the market, but 737NG resale values are way way higher than their A32X counter-parts....

"Not so long ago I suggested a little stretch might improve market appeal"

Keesje, you think your statement is a revelation? Nearly every aircraft family is eventually stretched. Boeing certainly knows this and is prepared to offer a stretch version with an adequate order(s).

>Remember that carriers like AA, BA, and especially AF use the 772ER/773ER on premium routes but 744 on high capacity (but not necessarily yield) routes. These aircraft fly with as many first/biz seats as possible, so floor area is a necessity<

Um, AA does not fly the 744 or the 773, BA does not fly the 773 and their 744s go to major yield routes (2X a day to LAX, YYZ, JNB, etc.)
You are, however, dead on with AF. Also, considering their policy that seems to favor Boeing wideboddies and Airbus narrowboddies (yes, I know they have some A340s/A340s but they have leaned Boeing), and the fact that they could do a team order with KL and NW, the 7E7 could be in AF's future as well.

But Airbus is building what airlines want to buy at a price airlines want to pay. Boeing isn't ...

Airbus has never once met their target OEW for the A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, or A340-600. Airbus does not have a modern widebody capable of flying regional sectors. Airbus does not have a direct replacement for the 767-300ER.

Is Airbus serving the needs of the airlines who want an A310 replacement, or a 767 replacement, or want a product that will meet its performance goals the first time? No, smart one. Look at the major orders coming down the pipe....

QF wants a 747 replacement, and before the day is over a 773ER is on the tarmac in SYD. It's there for a "Connexion" demonstration but why would AF be asked to delay one of their 773ERs when other Connexion equipped aircraft are available for demo purposes? There were major ulterior motives for sending a 773ER to SYD, and you can bet Boeing will be all over that order.

Oh, and what can Airbus do if Boeing launches the 777-200LRF? The A345 is 56,000 lbs heavier than a 772LR, so if your suggesting that it would make a suitable freighter platform you must be joking. Then there are the 18-30 773ERs SQ is ordering before year's end. And EK could easily order a sizable number in the same timetable.

What Boeing is losing out on is low-yield narrow body orders. Oh darn, Boeing missed a chance to scrap a 1% profit on precious delivery slots. By not flooding the market, Boeing has kept the resale value of their aircraft very high, which customers and lessors appreciate. And why is Airbus being so aggresive for narrow body orders? To keep cash flow positive as Boeing takes major high-yielding widebody order away from them.

Boeing doesn't love losing ordes, but given selling 30 777-300ERs to SQ or 60 737-800s to Air Berlin, you go with the 777s.

Whoa, DFW, you summed up my last 6 months of explaining to the Leahy slaves!

DC10guy, you must understand that should Airbus launch the A350, all they are doing is damage control. Yes, they can maintain their longtimers like VS, but its a 167-1 chance they'll get a new customer from a rushed product deririved from the A330.
Now, as said in the other posts, should airbus launch the A350, i always said why not Boeing launch the 747X???/737ERs Boeing has the resources and capital, all it needs to do is to hire some new staff (I know it's not that simple). This could leave airbus in a fix and they will not be able to launch a 3rd program, unless they want to become a Boeing/MDD/Airbus....hehehe

Sounds like some great excuses DFW dude. I realize that 200 airplane orders in the last week for Airbus is nothing compared to Qatar airlines thinking about buying the non existing "7E7" but hey,,, I'm sure Boeing can con some one into buying the 7E7.... But it won't be any airline in the US anytime soon. Boeing needs to learn how to compete.

All but a handful of QF's current 744s were delivered before 1992, and the 743s are a rather tiny subfleet of 1984-1987 builds. Excluding the small subfleet of 744ERs, QF's are rather mature. High gas prices and the potential for the 773ER to be more profitable on many sectors could accelerate their retirement.

The 773ER can do nearly everything QF asks their 747s to do, burns less fuel, carries more cargo, requires lower landing fees, less maintenance, and has fewer seats to fill. Yeah QF can fill a 744, but if 30 people are flying on FF-Miles, axing the seats is not a loss in profit. Moving to the 777 might be a very smart move for QF

And Airbus needs to learn yield manegment. BCA has posted a consistent profit for the past four years, Airbus posted two losses.

Airbus super-agressive dealing can be atributed to several factors-
1. They want to pressure Boeing to replace the 737NG first, hence allowing Airbus to be 2nd to the 120-180 seat replacement market and grabbing a technical edge. Highly unlikey that this is the case as Boeing won't commit to a 737NG replacement for many many years anyway.

2. Try to take out one of Boeing's cash-crops in a time when they have invested heavily in R/D. Possible.... but Boeing's risk-sharing partners have largely negated and financial risk to Boeing.

3. Intentionally flood market with over-capacity via LCC. LCCs harm the customers that typically would be ordering the 7E7 right now. Airbus can't stop American Airlines from ordering the 7E7, but they can make sure B6 has enough aircraft to keep them from making a profit. Also, look at SQ. They stated they had to defer a decision on a regional widebody (namely 7E7-3) because of LCC growth. The S.E. Asian LCC market has been fueled almost entirely by A320 sales. Hmmmm......

4. Maintain a cash flow as Boeing takes high-yielding orders away. Boeing is now capatilizing like hell off the 777, and Airbus is having a difficult time competing. See above. This could be plausable IMO...

---

All in all, I see Airbus agressiveness as a short-term analomoly to meet near-term goals. It is not a sign of the next 10 years, or even 2. Boeing 737NG sales were screwing the A320 by an equal margin in 1999-2002... things change... but you need a reality check for sure.

DFW dude, Your excuses for Boeing sound desperate. Airbus doesn't make money on their A320's but the 737's are Boeings cash cow ??? Boeing makes great airplanes just like Airbus does. The problem is Boeing has never had to compete aggressively ... That's a lesson they need to learn.